Not to change the topic, but I always liked the concept of the Chromebooks. Fast booting, always up to date, and the $249 looks like it has decent hardware. Puppy is more versatile, and loading it onto small quality laptop would give a lot of the same capabilities/qualities of a Chromebook, as long as Chromium browser is installed. In addition, one can dual boot with other OS's. I wish I could get Chrome remote desktop to work on Chromium browser in Puppy._________________HP P6115y/AMDX2 2.5 GHz/8GB RAM/750GB/WinVista Home Prem SP2 64 bit Dual Monitor (Saluki23 w/ Compiz|Slacko533 PAE w/ Compiz USB stick)
Compaq Presario 2195us Athlon XP 1GB RAM Lupu 5.2.8 Frugal
Moto X 2014|Lumia 820 WP8.1|LG Realm rooted

Hi
Guys
This thread has missed the whole very basic issue.
ANY thing which is built withthe linux kernal as a base cannot have any patent UNLESS that code was develpoed for a none linux system.
Google knows its on bad ground with the google OS and the android patents as they are in the same position as microsoft.

Basicaly google has used the Linux Kernal and have not stayed within the spirit of the Linux ethos.

Hello,
Actually, that`s not the case..
Firstly, he did not patent Puppy, Linux, or any Linux code..
He patented the idea of a "web-centric OS"..
However, Android for example, is based on the Linux kernel..
Does the GPL allow Google to patent:
"The name and image "Android" as it applies to a mobile OS"..
Yes... It does...
What about the software?
OK.. Lets say I write the code from scratch..
If I don`t incorporate any code released under the GPL, even though my code runs on the Linux kernel, I dont have to release it under the GPL.. I then only have to provide the kernel sources, nothing more..
Lets say I do use GPL`d code and software.. Can I patent it.. Can I sell it?
As long as I "provide access to the source code" I sure can..
The GPL doesnt say "you cannot profit from, or own, your work"
As long as you "provide access to the source code" you sure can..
You cant patent GPL`d code itself, but you can patent your "Idea" using it..
For example, lets say I come up with a way to use MTPaint to control Radar installations. I cannot patent the MTPaint software itself, it is GPL..
But I can patent the "use of graphical software as it applies to Radar control"
or some such BS... Just have to provide the MTPaint sources, nothing more...
The GPL doesnt prevent owning YOUR OWN ideas, or code.. Just the use of other GPL code to do so..
So if you write YOUR OWN ORIGINAL code in C, just because it runs on the Linux kernel, does not mean you have to release it GPL.. "Open Source" isnt forced upon you.
Just because it is "The right thing to do" doesnt mean you are bound to do it.._________________Close the Windows, and open your eyes, to a whole new world
http://puppylinuxstuff.meownplanet.net/puppyluvr/
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Puppy since 2.15CE...

Does the GPL allow Google to patent:
"The name and image "Android" as it applies to a mobile OS"..
Yes... It does... ...

The name and image are trademarks, they do not apply to the technology used. You could patent mobile OS technology as long as it didn't use ideas/code substantially taken from ideas/code already under GPL

Quote:

... Lets say I do use GPL`d code and software.. Can I patent it.. Can I sell it?
As long as I "provide access to the source code" I sure can..
The GPL doesnt say "you cannot profit from, or own, your work" ...

You are right you could sell GPL code, but you couldn't patent it. Unless the idea/code was substantially different - like in your radar example._________________helping Wiki for help | IF SendSpace link = "dead" THEN PM me ("up file to http://meownplanet.net/")

Hi
You did not read my post properly
The words " linux kernal as a base" are the operative words. Google cannot patent any code in a linux distro, that been proven in EU law but not in USA law. But yes the idea and name can be patented.

You cant patent GPL`d code itself, but you can patent your "Idea" using it..
For example, lets say I come up with a way to use MTPaint to control Radar installations. I cannot patent the MTPaint software itself, it is GPL..
But I can patent the "use of graphical software as it applies to Radar control" or some such BS... Just have to provide the MTPaint sources, nothing more...
The GPL doesnt prevent owning YOUR OWN ideas, or code.. Just the use of other GPL code to do so..

It is not that simple. GPL version 3 spells this out in section 11:
A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License.

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.

If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
work and works based on it.

And this is precisely why mtPaint is "GPL 3 or later".

But the Linux kernel is licensed under GPL version 2, which does not explicitly preclude some downstream contributor, or distributor, from trying to spring some patent trap on others.

So if Nelson's project wasn't Chrome OS's father, where did it come from? Originally, it seems to have started with Ubuntu Linux. Chrome OS was released in November 2009 and the news quickly came out that Canonical, Ubuntu's parent company, had helped build Chrome OS.

In a Canonical blog posting, Chris Kenyon, then Canonical's VP of OEM Services, wrote, "Canonical is contributing engineering to Google under contract. In our discussions, Sundar Pichai [Google's senior vice president of Chrome] and Linus Upson [Google's VP of engineering for Chrome] made it clear that they want, wherever feasible, to build on existing components and tools from the open-source community without unnecessary re-invention."

So, Chrome OS today is based on Ubuntu? Well, no... it's not. The first builds of Chrome OS had Ubuntu as its foundation, but it's changed over the years. In February 2010, Chrome OS started switching its foundation Linux distribution from Ubuntu to the older, and more obscure, Gentoo Linux.

Nicely done - somehow the "origins" of ChromeOS are a 2010 switch to Gentoo????

Knowing what ChromeOS is built on today is a totally different thing to identifying it's origins.

I really hate to see people mask the creative genius that initially gives birth to great solutions. Give credit where credit is due I reckon.

Its going to be difficult for me to document the invention process further unless/until someone at Google leaks some screenshots or one of the Powerpoint presentations we did for management. Or the Guppy distribution itself

Hi
jeff Nielson
The discussion is not about silicon valley patent lawyers but about the basic concept of the use of community effort to make money due to restrictive practice. This is a fundamental question which governments will not tackle due to lobbyists from the industry.

Its going to be difficult for me to document the invention process further unless/until someone at Google leaks some screenshots or one of the Powerpoint presentations we did for management. Or the Guppy distribution itself

Wouldn't Guppy be covered by a licence that required the source etc to be made available? (Not that I really know anything useful about GPL and Linux licensing etc...)

I don't see how that patent proves anything about Puppy. It appears to claims rights to a technology for using a sort of pre-bootloader to download and combine filesystem images and then let the bootloader boot the result. No one anywhere is doing such a thing -nor is there really any need to. It's straightforward to boot a kernel and an initrd which will do the same steps -it's just being done by userspace tools(in the initrd) instead of being done by the pre-bootloader. We already have an endless variety of such systems -and neither GoogleOS, ChromeOS, Guppy or Puppy are doing anything original with their implementations.

You guys are fussing over getting credit for something which you did not invent. Do you suppose that it was just an accident that the conecepts of ramdisk, intial-ramdisk and initramfs were invented -that the inventor had no idea what to do with such a thing and never even tested any ideas? You want credit for running from RAM? Then, Peter Anvin might have something to say.

The discussion is not about silicon valley patent lawyers but about the basic concept of the use of community effort to make money due to restrictive practice. This is a fundamental question which governments will not tackle due to lobbyists from the industry.

Google's record of supporting the open source community, both with code and cash, is fairly exemplary.

No doubt, we need patent reform as a whole in the software industry. I specifically question the 20 year term of patents, since this industry has product life cycles that often last 1-2 years at most. Holding a patent for 20 years in the software industry is as good as holding a patent, forever.

Until reform happens, companies have to work within the current system.